New Unity pricing

sharknice said:
Yeah if you want 2D UE isn't really made for that. Godot is progbably their best option, especially since it's free.

If you were using Unity for 3D over Unreal Engine IMO you already made a poor choice, probably because you were already too deeply invested in Unity development to consider other options. In which case it will be a hard switch, maybe this is the tipping point though.
Click to expand...
You would think that 2D for UE wasn't a good fit but...
https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.2/en-US/paper-2d-in-unreal-engine/
This works really well and has had growing support for the last year or more.

I think the final nail for Unity was Nintendo showing off their new console with all the UE5 bells and whistles, Unity was the official development environment for the Nintendo Switch if they knew that it was changing with the Switch 2 release, then they knew the writing is on the wall for them.
Ask not whom the bell tolls and what not.
 
Shares dropped too fast, board got spooked.

It's OK though, they've probably necked themselves backtracking or no. Who the hell is going to trust them now?

There are a lot of companies that were living of free debt that are trying to figure out how to make money these days.
 
This probably does not add anything meaningful to the discussion but a friend of mine just sent this to me and I couldn't help but share. 😆
 

Attachments

  • IMG-20230919-WA0002.jpg
    IMG-20230919-WA0002.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Tsumi said:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023...-breaks-up-over-lack-of-trust-in-the-company/

The fallout continues. I guess the one big positive is spurred investment in open source engines.
Click to expand...

This does not surprise me. What does surprise me is that the previous change to the TOS didn't drive more people away. Specifically to unreal engine. The terms aren't awful, but probably more importantly long term, they eat their own dog food AND they have revenue streams other than just the engine AND the engine is used by a lot of very successful games. Which means the odds of them having to go lookin between the proverbial couch cushions for spare change is not very likely. The terms are likely to be the terms for a while, and the odds of them being changed too radically are minimal because their big customers can afford good lawyers, and their pockets are deep enough that those lawyers will see value in putting the screws to them.

Twisted Kidney said:
There are a lot of companies that were living of free debt that are trying to figure out how to make money these days.
Click to expand...

Yup, and a lot of companies are going to find out just how much people can live without them.
 
raz-0 said:
This does not surprise me. What does surprise me is that the previous change to the TOS didn't drive more people away.
Click to expand...


Unity's initial moves where they removed the right to keep using older versions of the TOS/License for finished projects managed to avoid notice. They didn't loudly announce the change and normal people have better things to do with their time than to monitor TOSes for major unannounced changes.
 
Armenius said:
Riccitiello is out.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20231009494331/en/Unity-Announces-Leadership-Transition
Click to expand...

Good riddance. That said the board has some equally has equally nasty people from what I have gathered. Throwing Riccitello out is good but I doubt he was the the sole cause of this mess but he was a convenient scapegoat. That said I hope this was a sufficient warning for the Unity to not mess around, we need more competition in the game engine department. Unreal already has a borderline monopoly in Triple AAA videogames.
 
KazeoHin said:
He'll probably get a several-hundred-million dollar golden parachute, and get elected as a CEO for another company soon enough.
Click to expand...
I honestly think he wanted to retire, but needed something to trigger that golden parachute to open, simply peacing out wasn't an option but an obviously terrible business decision made with zero input or questioning would definitely trigger a "you have 1 month to get your crap in order with a letter of resignation" type of "retirement", which would trigger said clause and he can now happily retire fortune in hand.
 
The question is, did he get canned for the boneheaded pricing scheme or for backing down from the boneheaded pricing scheme?
 
OutOfPhase said:
He wanted to retire, and the company needed a scapegoat.
Click to expand...
Lakados said:
I honestly think he wanted to retire, but needed something to trigger that golden parachute to open, simply peacing out wasn't an option but an obviously terrible business decision made with zero input or questioning would definitely trigger a "you have 1 month to get your crap in order with a letter of resignation" type of "retirement", which would trigger said clause and he can now happily retire fortune in hand.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt he 'wanted to retire'. Leeches like him don't 'retire' as retiring would mean not accumulating wealth. Even though he is a multi-billionaire, there's one amount of money he doesn't have: More.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top